Second Revision by Same Parties Barred Under Section 397 CrPC?

In the realm of criminal procedure in India, navigating the revisional jurisdiction can be tricky for litigants and lawyers alike. A common query arises: The Revision by same Parties under 397 Crpc is Barred. This statement captures a fundamental principle under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), specifically Section 397(3), which prohibits the same parties from filing a second revision petition against the same order. This bar aims to ensure finality in proceedings, prevent abuse of process, and promote judicial efficiency.

This blog post delves into the legal framework, key judicial precedents, exceptions, and practical implications. While this analysis draws from established case law, it is for informational purposes only and does not constitute specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.

Understanding Section 397 CrPC: The Revisional Jurisdiction

Section 397 CrPC empowers the High Court or Sessions Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceeding for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order. However, this power is not unlimited.

• Sub-section (2): Bars interference with interlocutory orders to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
• Sub-section (3): Explicitly states, If any application under this section has been rejected by any Court before which it is filed, no second application by the same parties shall be entertained by any other Court. This is the core of the prohibition on second revisions. 2023 0 Supreme(J&K) 295

As highlighted in multiple rulings, once a revision is dismissed by the Sessions Court, a second revision before the High Court is not maintainable under Sections 397, 399, or 401 CrPC. 2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 444

The Strict Bar on Second Revisions by Same Parties

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld this bar to prevent parties from forum-shopping or prolonging litigation.

• In Kailash Verma v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation, the apex court emphasized that Section 397(3) is a strict prohibition, and inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot substitute for a second revision. 2023 0 Supreme(J&K) 295
• Rajathi v. C.Ganesan reinforces that post-dismissal by Sessions Court, the High Court cannot entertain a second revision under Section 482. 2023 0 Supreme(J&K) 295

Lower courts echo this:- The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Manjla @ Mahendra & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh ruled a second revision under Section 482 is not maintainable, as no such provision exists. 2023 0 Supreme(J&K) 295- Delhi High Court in Narender v. State held that a petition disguised as Section 482 cannot bypass the Section 397(3) bar. 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 1827

From additional precedents: It is contended that second Revision by the same party is barred under Sub-Section (3) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C.2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 2774 This sentiment is widespread, with courts dismissing attempts at second revision in the garb of petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2019 0 Supreme(P&H) 1599

Key Quote: Further, in view of the provisions u/s 397(3) CrPC, a second revision against the same order with the same prayer is not maintainable. 2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 444

Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC: Not a Backdoor?

While Section 397(3) bars statutory revisions, the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 allow quashing proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice. However, these are exercised sparingly.

• Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra clarifies that Section 482 powers are not a substitute for statutory remedies like revision. 2022 0 Supreme(J&K) 184
• Courts warn against using Section 482 to circumvent the bar: However, a person cannot be permitted to do indirectly what he cannot do directly. 2019 0 Supreme(P&H) 1599

Exceptional Use: Second revision is barred under section 397(2) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be entertained only in exceptional and rare cases only if High Court is satisfied that continuation of trial would result in gross abuse of process of law. 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 4876

Judicial Precedents Reinforcing the Bar

Numerous High Court decisions underscore finality:

| Case/Reference | Key Holding ||---------------|-------------|| Krishnan v. Krishnaveni2022 0 Supreme(Del) 1183

Visual Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. vs Executive Engineer (E) Plewd, CPWD - Delhi (2022)

The Bar on Second Revision under Section 397(3) CrPC is explicit: The law explicitly prohibits filing a second revision against the same order once it has been dismissed or decided. 2023 0 Supreme(Pat) 710

Exceptions and When Inherent Powers May Apply

Though rare, exceptions exist:- To prevent miscarriage of justice or gross abuse of process. 2022 0 Supreme(J&K) 184- If the first revision was not decided on merits or new grounds emerge (though typically not).- Scope of Revision u/s 397 & 401: High Court exercises appellate-like powers sparingly in supervision. 2023 0 Supreme(MP) 292

Counterargument: Petitions under 482 may be converted to revisions if fitting, but post-dismissal, the bar holds. 2025 1 Supreme 595

A second revision by the same party is barred by virtue of Section 397(3) CrPC.2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 1744

Practical Implications for Litigants and Lawyers

• For Accused/Petitioners: Exhaust revision at Sessions level first. Avoid second bites unless exceptional circumstances justify Section 482.
• Alternatives: Appeal if available, or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 (limited).
• Risks: Dismissal with costs for frivolous second petitions.

Recommendations:- Advise clients against filing under guise of inherent powers without compelling reasons. 2023 0 Supreme(J&K) 295- Explore other remedies post-Sessions dismissal.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Generally, the revision by the same parties under Section 397 CrPC is barred once the first is disposed of. This principle, upheld by the Supreme Court and High Courts, ensures procedural finality. While Section 482 offers a narrow window in exceptional cases, it cannot routinely substitute revisions. 2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 441

Key Takeaways:1. Section 397(3) strictly bars second revisions by same parties.2. Section 482 is sparingly used, not as a workaround.3. Judicial efficiency trumps repeated challenges.4. Always check precedents like Kailash Verma and Krishnan v. Krishnaveni.

Disclaimer: This is general information based on case law. Legal outcomes depend on facts; seek professional advice.

References:- 2023 0 Supreme(J&K) 295 2022 0 Supreme(J&K) 184 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 1827- 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 1183

Visual Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. vs Executive Engineer (E) Plewd, CPWD - Delhi (2022)